• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Official Wii U Discussion Thread

AuraChannelerChris

Easygoing Luxray.
All I can say is Nintendo better step up their game as far as hardware, because if they remain as stubborn as they were with the Wii, Nintendo is ****ed. They were pretty much forced to release their console earlier because of Kinect and Move. Thanks to them, the Wii has nothing over the 360 and PS3 technologically. So unless they make significant improvements over the Wii, they're fighting a losing battle.

Nintendo was never, ever "****ed up" before. What makes you say they'll fall down with the Wii U?
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Nintendo was never, ever "****ed up" before. What makes you say they'll fall down with the Wii U?

Look at the Wii. Besides the motion control gimmicks, it's not much of an improvement over the Gamecube. Sure, it fine for a while, but then Microsoft and Sony added their own motion control peripherals to the 360 and PS3 and Nintendo's sales dropped significantly afterwards, despite releasing good games like Kirby's Epic Yarn and Donkey Kong Country Returns. Nintendo is killing themselves because of their refusal to adapt to cutting edge technology, that's why they were forced to reveal their next gen console early, to save themselves from being left in the dust.
 

Arsène

Well-Known Member
Look at the Wii. Besides the motion control gimmicks, it's not much of an improvement over the Gamecube. Sure, it fine for a while, but then Microsoft and Sony added their own motion control peripherals to the 360 and PS3 and Nintendo's sales dropped significantly afterwards, despite releasing good games like Kirby's Epic Yarn and Donkey Kong Country Returns. Nintendo is killing themselves because of their refusal to adapt to cutting edge technology, that's why they were forced to reveal their next gen console early, to save themselves from being left in the dust.

That is a total fabrication and you know it. As far as I'm concerned, Move is nearly irrelevant in terms of consumer interest and Kinect is just barely a success with its less than stellar library of games.

Nintendo isn't killing themselves when they continue to dominate software and hardware charts in their home country and to some extent, NA/EU as well.

Also: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Blac...Nintendo-3DS-Wii-Mario-and-Zelda-237350.shtml

P.S: Seems certain gamers continue to spout nonsense that having the best tech under the hood is the key to success. Well answer me this, why has almost every weaker system *won* their respective generation?

Bolded being the sales victor and lowest tech of the bunch.

Consoles:

NES - Sega Master System
SNES - Sega Genesis - Neo Geo - Turbografx-16
N64 - Playstation - Atari Jaguar - Sega Saturn - 3DO -Amiga CD32
PS2 - Xbox - GCN
Wii - PS3 - 360

Handhelds:

Gameboy - Sega GameGear - Atari Lynx - TurboExpress
Gameboy Color - Neo Geo Pocket - Sega Nomad
Gameboy Advance - Nokia N-Gage/QD - Neo Geo Pocket Color
Nintendo DS - Sony PSP

And from the looks of things, 3DS may repeat that cycle unless Sony can pull a fast one with the Vita.

Cutting edge technology doesn't necessarily decide the -winner- of a "console war"; marketing, pricing, accessibility, and third party support does.
 
Last edited:

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
That is a total fabrication and you know it. As far as I'm concerned, Move is nearly irrelevant in terms of consumer interest and Kinect is just barely a success with its less than stellar library of games.

Nintendo isn't killing themselves when they continue to dominate software and hardware charts in their home country and to some extent, NA/EU as well.

Also: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Blac...Nintendo-3DS-Wii-Mario-and-Zelda-237350.shtml

P.S: Seems certain gamers continue to spout nonsense that having the best tech under the hood is the key to success. Well answer me this, why has almost every weaker system *won* their respective generation?

Bolded being the sales victor and lowest tech of the bunch.

Consoles:

NES - Sega Master System
SNES - Sega Genesis - Neo Geo - Turbografx-16
N64 - Playstation - Atari Jaguar - Sega Saturn - 3DO -Amiga CD32
PS2 - Xbox - GCN
Wii - PS3 - 360

Handhelds:

Gameboy - Sega GameGear - Atari Lynx - TurboExpress
Gameboy Color - Neo Geo Pocket - Sega Nomad
Gameboy Advance - Nokia N-Gage/QD - Neo Geo Pocket Color
Nintendo DS - Sony PSP

And from the looks of things, 3DS may repeat that cycle unless Sony can pull a fast one with the Vita.

Cutting edge technology doesn't necessarily decide the -winner- of a "console war"; marketing, pricing, accessibility, and third party support does.

Yes, I'm well aware that quality of the video games is a factor, but it's not the only factor. Simply having good games isn't enough for a successful console anymore, the console itself needs to be good. And Nintendo consoles have been utter garbage lately compared to Sony and Microsoft.
 

Torpoleon

Well-Known Member
If it's not a real game, then why was it shown at E3 2011?
It's just a tech demo with a possibility of being turned into a full-fledged game at this point.
 

Arsène

Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm well aware that quality of the video games is a factor, but it's not the only factor. Simply having good games isn't enough for a successful console anymore, the console itself needs to be good. And Nintendo consoles have been utter garbage lately compared to Sony and Microsoft.

Not sure if I should continue feeding, but okay.

Edit: I don't know about you, but I buy a videogame console to, you know, play the games I'm interested in. Extra trinkets or tidbits are nice and all - but mean next to nothing to me when I have other devices which could do such things far better than a console. Having the most powerful console doesn't really mean much either as shown generation and generation again...I'm sure people out there are like that--who want to believe the best tech and most features is all that matters, but I'm also sure they're a minority.

However, if you're under this belief that the consoles extras or hardware performance is really what's going to matter for the market in the distant future, then that's fine by me. I won't judge.
 
Last edited:

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Not sure if I should continue feeding, but okay.

Okay, I got caught up in the moment. They're not garbage consoles, but they pale in comparison to Microsoft and Sony.

I don't know about you, but I buy a videogame console to, you know, play the games I'm interested in. Extra trinkets or tidbits are nice and all - but mean next to nothing to me when I have other devices which could do such things far better than a console. Having the most powerful console doesn't really mean much either as shown generation and generation again...

However if you're under this belief that the consoles extras or hardware performance is really what's going to matter for the market in the distant future, then that's fine by me. I won't judge.

Your talking about media capabilities, right? Well TBH, I don't care very much for them either, but if there's anything you should've learned from Economics 101, it's when given a choice between the console with media capabilities and the one without (and let's assume the two consoles are identical otherwise), everyone's going to want the one with. But even so, that's not what I'm talking about. The bigger issue here is that up until the Wii U was announced Nintendo was losing 3rd party support because the Wii simply couldn't handle what the other companies wanted like the 360 and PS3 can. Sonic is a great example of this difference. Compare some of the most recent Sonic games on the Wii with some of the most recent games on the 360 and PS3. The HD games have sharper graphics, but more importantly, play faster and are an overall more fun experience than any Sonic game you'll get on the Wii. So yeah, having a more powerful console does make a difference, and it's going to end up being Nintendo's demise as a console manufacturer if they don't fix it ASAP.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
Okay, I got caught up in the moment. They're not garbage consoles, but they pale in comparison to Microsoft and Sony.

In technology? Yes, conciously. Nintendo made the choice to sell a lower-powered console with a new control method at a price hundreds of dollars lower than the competition. I think it worked okay for them as far as sales go, yeah?

So yeah, having a more powerful console does make a difference

See, you may have a point here, that Nintendo can do what they did with the Wii and, to a lesser extent, the GameCube - selling a lower-powered console at a lower price and reaping the profits - for only so long before it backfires...

and it's going to end up being Nintendo's demise as a console manufacturer if they don't fix it ASAP.

...but whatever point you do have completely falls apart as soon as you start predicting "Nintendo's demise as a console manufacturer". People who predict this are doing nothing more than taking one historical example and trying to apply it here, despite none of the same conditions existing.

Sega dropped out of the hardware business because of not only two hardware losses in a row, but because of massive business and financial troubles. Neither of those are the case with Nintendo. They've suffered no hardware losses - the GameCube finishing "third" in a generation is not a loss, by any stretch, because they were still turning a profit - and they are known to possess massive financial coffers. In no small part, this is what allows them to spend on the R&D that brings us stuff like the Wii, the DS and the 3DS, but what also allows them to take those risks, knowing that failure won't bankrupt them.

In the event that Nintendo were to truly, cataclysmically fail at a console, they would not stop making hardware completely, as Sega was forced to. Nintendo has more money than Sega did, Nintendo has a stable of properties that Sega didn't and doesn't, and Nintendo still has an iron grip on the handheld market. They would perhaps skip a generation of console hardware if that, they would focus on their handheld hardware and they would reload for the next round.

Now please. Stop predicting "Nintendo's demise as a console manufacturer", and even better, please stop doing it on the basis of a console for which we have a name, a controller, some pre-rendered video and some promised titles.
 
Last edited:

Arsène

Well-Known Member
Okay, I got caught up in the moment. They're not garbage consoles, but they pale in comparison to Microsoft and Sony.

In specs, third party support and quality of said support.

Your talking about media capabilities, right? Well TBH, I don't care very much for them either

Well, you somewhat implied it in your previous response.

but if there's anything you should've learned from Economics 101, it's when given a choice between the console with media capabilities and the one without (and let's assume the two consoles are identical otherwise), everyone's going to want the one with.

Problem with that assumption, is your pretty much describing a different SKU, if anything. There isn't a single device in the market that happens to be "identical" to the competitor's product to make such a claim.

"Identical"--at least the way you're putting it--would be pricing, library, processing power, just to name a few.

But even so, that's not what I'm talking about. The bigger issue here is that up until the Wii U was announced Nintendo was losing 3rd party support because the Wii simply couldn't handle what the other companies wanted like the 360 and PS3 can.

Which apparently, didn't happen to be all that large of an issue as you're making it. Sure, multiplatform games on Wii were very seldom (if at all) the same as the competition's, but in some cases, despite inferior visuals and perhaps length, made up for it with great gameplay thanks to the motion controls, or a different design concept.

but more importantly, play faster and are an overall more fun experience than any Sonic game you'll get on the Wii.

That's a pretty subjective opinion there.

Sonic Unleashed for Wii namely, had arguably the better gimmicky Night stages, but less immersion and exhilaration in the Day stages. Sonic Colors improved on such "day gameplay" with a design that wasn't too far off from the other console offerings. In fact, I prefer Colors over any other titles that showed up on the HD machines.

Another example could be Madden with again, arguably better controls/gameplay as opposed to the PS3/360 offerings. At least, to my knowledge.

So yeah, having a more powerful console does make a difference, and it's going to end up being Nintendo's demise as a console manufacturer if they don't fix it ASAP.

It's some sort of difference, but not necessarily a mandatory one as you're making it out to be. Most of what you're saying just involves the HD graphics and perhaps larger scale design as opposed to what you can find on Wii, but that doesn't necessarily make it any more or less fun.

Either way, if some of the specs that have been flying around with this console happen to be legit, "barely better than 360/PS3 performance" would be one hell of an understatement if it's running ATI's RV770--which is about 2-3 generations ahead of the Xenon GPU/RSX in 360/PS3.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
In technology? Yes, conciously. Nintendo made the choice to sell a lower-powered console with a new control method at a price hundreds of dollars lower than the competition. I think it worked okay for them as far as sales go, yeah?

Perhaps, I'm just trying to make a point about how extra stuff sells. That's why in my example I said the consoles were identical (and yes, I meant in price as well). Of course these kinds of decisions are complicated by additional factors such as cost.

In the event that Nintendo were to truly, cataclysmically fail at a console, they would not stop making hardware completely, as Sega was forced to. Nintendo has more money than Sega did, Nintendo has a stable of properties that Sega didn't and doesn't, and Nintendo still has an iron grip on the handheld market. They would perhaps skip a generation of console hardware if that, they would focus on their handheld hardware and they would reload for the next round.

I wasn't talking about the handhelds, but we can talk about that if you want. Nintendo has traditionally dominated the handheld market for years, but their virtual monopoly on the handheld market isn't as safe as it used to be. With the announcement of Vita, Sony is rather viciously attacking Nintendo's hold on the handheld market, and the way things look so far, it's not going to be as easy this generation for Nintendo. So if they were to drop consoles, they'd only be cutting their losses. At any rate, you can't say that things are looking too great for Nintendo right now.

Problem with that assumption, is your pretty much describing a different SKU, if anything. There isn't a single device in the market that happens to be "identical" to the competitor's product to make such a claim.

"Identical"--at least the way you're putting it--would be pricing, library, processing power, just to name a few.

It's a theoretical situation, I'm just trying to prove a point with a simple example.

Which apparently, didn't happen to be all that large of an issue as you're making it. Sure, multiplatform games on Wii were very seldom (if at all) the same as the competition's, but in some cases, despite inferior visuals and perhaps length, made up for it with great gameplay thanks to the motion controls, or a different design concept.

Well everyone's going to get sick of the motion controls eventually, so again, it's not something they should be relying on for too long.

That's a pretty subjective opinion there.

Sonic Unleashed for Wii namely, had arguably the better gimmicky Night stages, but less immersion and exhilaration in the Day stages. Sonic Colors improved on such "day gameplay" with a design that wasn't too far off from the other console offerings. In fact, I prefer Colors over any other titles that showed up on the HD machines.

Colors was too slow and had too much blocky platforming. And they could easily do Colors on the 360/PS3, they simply made it Wii exclusive to throw Nintendo owners a bone. As for Sonic Unleashed Wii being better, the Day stages are what matter most, because that's the main Sonic gameplay.

It's some sort of difference, but not necessarily a mandatory one as you're making it out to be. Most of what you're saying just involves the HD graphics and perhaps larger scale design as opposed to what you can find on Wii, but that doesn't necessarily make it any more or less fun.

Either way, if some of the specs that have been flying around with this console happen to be legit, "barely better than 360/PS3 performance" would be one hell of an understatement if it's running ATI's RV770--which is about 2-3 generations ahead of the Xenon GPU/RSX in 360/PS3.

I hope your right, because if it is only barely better than the 360/PS3, Nintendo is going to be right back where they started once Microsoft and Sony release their next gen consoles. No doubt they'll perform significantly better.
 
Last edited:

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
My point was that Nintendo if were to skip a generation of console hardware, it would be because they felt it was a sound business decision, and even then, it would only be one skip and even then, they would still have their handheld legacy on which to fall back.

Sega left that field on a permanent basis because they literally had no choice, and their handheld efforts had been a non-factor for years by that point.

At any rate, you can't say that things are looking too great for Nintendo right now.

Nor can you say they're looking apocalyptic, as you claim. Nintendo is in no danger right now. None.
 

Slick

Banned
Depending on price and launch titles, I might pick one up on release, but otherwise, I can be patient.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
My point was that Nintendo if were to skip a generation of console hardware, it would be because they felt it was a sound business decision, and even then, it would only be one skip and even then, they would still have their handheld legacy on which to fall back.

Sega left that field on a permanent basis because they literally had no choice, and their handheld efforts had been a non-factor for years by that point.

IDK, Nintendo's getting pretty close. Releasing the Wii U is pretty much an act of desperation.

Nor can you say they're looking apocalyptic, as you claim. Nintendo is in no danger right now. None.

Right, because quite clearly their refusal to adapt to more modern hardware is working so well for them. If Nintendo's doing as well as you said, then how can you justify the fact that their sales dropped in a year when they released several great games? That is definitely not a sign of success.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
They better not release a Cooking Mama on the console; then it will be called Wii U Mama.

Lame jokes aside, I did want to get one since it will release a showcase of Nintendo games, and as a Nintendo fan, I look forward to that.

It will also be interesting to see how they utilize the technology.
 

BCVM22

Well-Known Member
IDK, Nintendo's getting pretty close. Releasing the Wii U is pretty much an act of desperation.

The Wii is five years old. It will likely be six years old by the time the Wii U releases. Five years (ish) was the lifespan for the SNES, the N64 and the GameCube. If this is an "act of desperation" as you claim, it's not one that involves Nintendo doing anything out of the ordinary, which would almost discount it from being such an act to begin with.

Right, because quite clearly their refusal to adapt to more modern hardware is working so well for them.

Well... 90 million units worldwide as of a month ago, so...?

If Nintendo's doing as well as you said, then how can you justify the fact that their sales dropped in a year when they released several great games?

"Their sales" in what? The Wii? Yeah. The console's five years old and sniffing the barn, and I won't deny for a second that software's been pretty sparse. In what else? 3DS sales have skyrocketed. And shall we point out that there are economic downturns worldwide - not conditions that lend themselves the best to entertainment purchases - and that a large part of Nintendo's home country suffered a cataclysmic natural disaster this year, also the sort of thing that tends to depress electronics purchasing just a bit?

Again, you're arguing conditions that don't exist, or at least don't exist to nearly the extent you're trying to posit, and even flimsier, you're arguing them on the basis of next-generation hardware that's probably still the better part of a year away from releasing.
 
Top